[Gluster-Maintainers] Maintainer's Meeting Minutes: Meeting date: 11/15/2017 (Nov 15th)

Amar Tumballi atumball at redhat.com
Fri Nov 17 05:15:41 UTC 2017

BJ Link

   - Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/205933580
   - Download: https://bluejeans.com/s/eFJy


   - [Sorry Note] misc, Atin (Conflicting meeting), Csaba
   - Amar, Nigel, Nithya, Xavi, Ravi, Mohit Agrawal, Shyam, Deepshika,
   Kaushal, Niels (late, BlueJeans–)
   - <Add your name here>



   Action items from last meeting:
   - [nigelb] Metrics on first-time contributors?
      - [nigelb] Cregit run?
         - Both to be tracked as bugzilla bug, request queue full atm.

   Re-visiting closing old reviews [nigelb]
   - Using Gerrit to do the initial closing is a bad idea.
      - We have a lot of reviews and each abandon triggers an email to
      everyone involved.
      - This means Gerrit server will get greylisted by all providers as we
      did for stage recently.
      - We have a Jenkins job that will close a few old reviews every day.
      Currently thinking of 25 per day. Once we catch up, we can
either continue
      with the bot or use Gerrit to do this.
      - Is the plan sounding fine?
         - Yes
      - Review: https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18734/

   Release sanity [nigelb]
   - We run regression-test-burn-in for master.
      - We don’t for release branches. Seems like a no-brainer to do this.
      - However, this will add load onto regression machines 1x number of
      active releases per day.
         - This occupies machines, should we run such things once daily, so
         that we can keep regression machines free?
            - Are we not moving towards reducing regression time, so this
            is not a problem?
            - Need more regression machines to pull this off
            - Move the job to Eastern TZ (mid-day or later) as that is a
            relatively free of regression jobs zone.
            - More patches in one job, means finding out what caused
            failure would be more difficult
               - This possibly can be handled using git bisect and other
            - Options to mitigate
         - We will trigger a regression run only if there are changes since
         last run.
         - Shall we move regression-test-burn-in to nightly?
         - We (release-owners) need the ability to trigger this job, so
         that a release can be made (releatively) deterministically [Shyam]

   Jeff’s email on Pressing ‘Submit’ if everything is OK?
   - What is stopping you from doing it?
         - Assumption is that maintainer of the component merges the patch
         - Not focussing on the patch backlog due to other constraints
         - Xavi is taking good initiative here, need more of the same
         - We need a catch all case when patches are not moving, than
         depend/rely on maintainers always
            - Master dashboard:
         - Components in the fringe are often ignored, and need attention
         (for example hooks or such)

   Regression Suggestion:
   - Should author wait for at least one sanity review before running
         - Current regression takes time, so not running on local machines
         - Sometimes reviewers see patches only post a regression score
         - People trigger regression before smoke finishes, which is bad!
         (when smoke fails)
            - Should we pipeline this, regression only if smoke passes.
            This may lead to some trouble with voting, needs a bit of
            - This could be a problem in terms of people running random
            code on our tests.
         - Release branches is better to get regression votes before
         review, as release-owners may need to review and merge in the
window that
         they work with the branch/release [Shyam]
         - Decision: Not yet! (wait for regression jobs to run faster)
      - Will save some cycles as I have seen authors doing ‘+1’ to verify
      immediately, and then they get -1.
      - Makes sense if their patch gets reviewed just after smoke (or even
      without smoke +1 too)
         - [Atin] I have a disagreement of author to wait for review before
         marking the patch verified +1. To me, it’s author’s responsibility to
         ensure the basic regression is passed and that way maintainers get a
         confidence on the sanity of the patch. As a GlusterD & CLI
maintainer, most
         of the times I look at reviewing patches (in 90 - 95% cases)
which have
         passed regression.

   ‘experimental’ branch rebase
   - Major conflicts with posix changes :-/
         - Shyam to blame :/
         - AI: Shyam to sync with Amar and get this moving (Shyam)
      - Other option changes which GD2 was dependent on, is sent to master
      with --author set to original authors.

   4.0 Schedule [Shyam]
   - Slated for branching mid Dec, are we ready?
         - GD2 still a lot to be done
      - Do we have burn down charts?
         - AI: Do this weekly (Shyam)
         - Example: http://radekstepan.com/burnchart/#!/gluster/glusterfs/3

   Round Table:
   - [Ravi] Patch https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17673/ for 3.13 is
         - AI: Shyam to get back on this (by Nov-16-2017)


   - Jenkins job to retire older reviews: Ack to do this, in batches
   - regression-test-burn-in for release branches: Ack
   - regression-test-burn-in on demand for release branches: (I think this
   was an Ack from Infra folks)
   - regression-test-burn-in for master moved to nightly (close to mid-day
   easter TZ): Ack

Amar Tumballi (amarts)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20171117/67036fd9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the maintainers mailing list